quote:Yep, its TOTALLY only Republicans that do it.
We're talking about a few different things here - registration fraud, vote fraud, and vote suppression. It's vote suppression that is the specialty of right-leaning groups. Registration fraud is almost a non-issue as it usually represents overzealous volunteers who are trying to pad their numbers - those bogus registrations don't end up in bogus votes.
Vote fraud does surface on both sides and possibly even more on the left but all the instances we know about so far have been pretty minor compared to the widespread affect of the organized suppression campaigns that have been discussed as well as the legislative efforts to make it more difficult in general to vote. From what we know now about the extent of actual vote fraud, the remedy of strict voter ID laws and related activities are likely disenfranchising an order of magnitude or two more people than are being prevented from voting illegally.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Matt: What do you think he's saying in that clip?
The most generous interpretation is that he's saying that vote fraud is so pervasive in Pennsylvania that illegal voters would have swung the election and that these illegal voters vote overwhelmingly for Obama.
As far as I can tell there's absolutely no evidence for these implications, so I think a more reasonable interpretation is that he and his audience understand that these laws tend to result in fewer legitimate Democratic votes.
Or, perhaps more pragmatically, with a voter ID law fewer Democratic votes, regardless of their validity, are likely to be cast and they don't really care whether it's because they were illegitimate to begin with or because the law dissuaded legitimate voters.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:From what we know now about the extent of actual vote fraud, the remedy of strict voter ID laws and related activities are likely disenfranchising an order of magnitude or two more people than are being prevented from voting illegally.
This right here. While fraud in voting is certainly a serious concern, when it comes to our attention to voting and regulations, there has simply got to be one priority, and it's not 'stop fraud'. It's to make voting as simple and accessible as possible while also minimizing fraud and error. If measures to prevent fraud or error actually keep more people away from the polls that were already voting than they do keep fraudulent or flawed votes out, we've messed up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Orincoro: . And you should produce your own lists of honest-to-god voter fraud committed by both the left and right, as you seem to quickly dismiss those others bring up. Please don't make it as weak as Samprimary's list.
I should produce my own list of anecdotes... Because I pointed out that a weak-sauce list of anecdotes doesn't prove anything?
No, i'm rather more interested in the fact that conservatives have demonstrably less respect for personal freedoms than democrats- as proven by statements such as the above, that stopping fraud is "just as important" as the right to vote.
The convenient fact that non-white, non middle and upper class people are usually effected by efforts to curb voter fraud is interesting. It's interesting that their rights are seen as disposable in the face of possible voter fraud.
But i'm sure, as a conservative freedom lover, you'd be against a few things like: issuing photo-ID for free to all citizens. Holding special days each year at post offices, schools and other public places to print and distribute ID and other documentation. And I'm sure as a freedom lover, you'd encourage a police presence at the polls, and ID checks for bench warrants, so that anybody with unpaid parking tickets will be too scared to come in. I'm sure that fits with your conception of justice.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done," Mr. Turzai told the gathering of party activists. "First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Matt: What do you think he's saying in that clip?
The most generous interpretation is that he's saying that vote fraud is so pervasive in Pennsylvania that illegal voters would have swung the election and that these illegal voters vote overwhelmingly for Obama.
As far as I can tell there's absolutely no evidence for these implications, so I think a more reasonable interpretation is that he and his audience understand that these laws tend to result in fewer legitimate Democratic votes.
Or, perhaps more pragmatically, with a voter ID law fewer Democratic votes, regardless of their validity, are likely to be cast and they don't really care whether it's because they were illegitimate to begin with or because the law dissuaded legitimate voters.
Last presidential election there was some pretty high profile (to people on the right, anyway) voter fraud allegations going on in PA, mostly involving ACORN if I remember right. At a guess, he's referencing that.
In general, most pro-voter-ID conservatives really do believe that Democratic voter fraud is dangerous and rampant, despite the lack of lots of clear evidence.
...And most people who talk about voter suppression feel the same way, despite a similar lack of clear evidence.
Both groups have amazing conviction that their problem is the real one, and the lack of evidence for it is actually perfectly explainable you see because you can't prove a negative and...
No.
I think that taking the position that Republicans support voter ID to disenfranchise minorities is about as logical as saying Democrats are opposing voter ID because it will damage their ballot-stuffing endeavors. In both cases some people might really feel that way, but going after that is barking up the wrong tree.
Seriously. Discussions are way more productive when you don't assume the other guy is the devil.
Example: I used to be tentatively supportive of voter ID laws. Now I'm tentatively opposed to them. I didn't change my mind from people accusing me of trying to suppress the poor.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Please don't make it as weak as Samprimary's list.
The list you still didn't even remotely understand the context and time of?
Ah, yes. Ignore the weakness of the information you use to back your opinion and instead claim it's a contextual and chronological error on my part. That ought to suffice..
As I said previously, it's always pertinant to point out the specious nature of the news stories that inform your opinion. It further highlights your bias. The context need be nothing more than that. But you're welcome to provide what you believe the context to be.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
There is plenty of evidence of voter suppression. Just look at the eligible voters "accidentally" taken off the voter roles in Florida, for example.
The ACORN stuff amounted to a few ACORN volunteers that submitted fake registrations in order to get paid for them. ACORN reported them and those fake registrations didn't get any further. Additionally, it wouldn't have made any difference as the fake people wouldn't have showed up to vote - because they are fake.
Of course, none of those types of allegations have been made toward the very respectable League of Women Voters which, after generations of registering voters, can no longer do their good work in Florida. That makes it considerably harder for eligible voters to be registered - a burden that fall disproportionally on the poor and working class.
Also, tell me how shortening the period for early voting guards against fraud?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, how about you try to think of a way someone might think that shortening the period for early voting could guard against fraud?
Seems to me that you're very deeply invested in the idea that Republicans have nefarious ulterior motives based on racism/stealing power etc. I really think it might benefit you to just, as a thought experiment, genuinely try to see if you can understand what their argument might be if they didn't have hidden evil motives.
If nothing else, being able to restate your opponent's position in a way that they would agree with is a really vital step to being able to dismantle it in a way they can't refute.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I should produce my own list of anecdotes... Because I pointed out that a weak-sauce list of anecdotes doesn't prove anything?
It's no longer an anecdotal list (I didn't add to those Geraine had compiled. I just provided links):
quote:No, i'm rather more interested in the fact that conservatives have demonstrably less respect for personal freedoms than democrats- as proven by statements such as the above, that stopping fraud is "just as important" as the right to vote.
Stopping voter fraud is just as important to democracy as the right to vote. See, I don't view a full ballot box as proof a of a successful democracy. Just look at certain arab countries. What good are legal votes when they are negated by fraudulent votes? A vote is to hear the voice of legal citizens, not dead, illegal, or fake people.
quote:The convenient fact that non-white, non middle and upper class people are usually effected by efforts to curb voter fraud is interesting. It's interesting that their rights are seen as disposable in the face of possible voter fraud.
It's possible to curb voter fraud and maintain their rights. I'm for issuing photo-ID for free to all citizens. It wouldn't be free, in that all citizens pay taxes and it would be a service they pay for. We already have an institution as massive and powerful as the IRS. It shouldn't be too difficult a task to coordinate. You wouldn't have to issue an ID every year and it could be taken care of at the place of registration and/or voting. Plus, everyone with a current, valid government-issued ID wouldn't need anything more. A police presence at the polls would be unwarranted. That fits my conception of democracy.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Please don't make it as weak as Samprimary's list.
The list you still didn't even remotely understand the context and time of?
Ah, yes. Ignore the weakness of the information you use to back your opinion and instead claim it's a contextual and chronological error on my part. That ought to suffice..
When it is, it does indeed suffice!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how stopping voter fraud is as important as the right to vote-that right is utterly foundational to democracy, after all.
But I do see what you mean: preventing fraud is as important to democracy as ensuring everyone who is eligible and desires to can vote. They're equally important ideals, but where you're rather badly slipping up is that in practice, we are doing much, much better at the former than the latter. There is simply no evidence that vote fraud is a comprehensive problem in the system.
The same cannot be said about problems which work to ensure everyone who is eligible and desirous will be able to vote. The poor and minorities are traditionally underrepresented at the polls, and there's just no way around that. Now unless you want to say, "Too bad, if they wanted to vote, they would," then you simply must acknowledge that there is a problem-and it slants mostly in one way, whereas vote fraud doesn't.
For the sake of argument, let's assume you agree with all of that. Personally I don't think there's much there that can be reasonably disagreed with, but that's my opinion, obviously. Given all of that, exactly which mainstream political group would you trust to take steps to increase the voter turnout of their opposition, before all future campaigns even begin?
For example, suppose there was a tradition of underrepresentation of socially conservative Baptist voters and interest in this country: exactly how far would you trust the Democratic party to work hard to take measures that would streamline the process for socially conservative Baptist voters?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The same cannot be said about problems which work to ensure everyone who is eligible and desirous will be able to vote. The poor and minorities are traditionally underrepresented at the polls, and there's just no way around that. Now unless you want to say, "Too bad, if they wanted to vote, they would," then you simply must acknowledge that there is a problem-and it slants mostly in one way, whereas vote fraud doesn't.
I think I agree with most of what you were saying in this post, but I have a question/clarification on the quoted passage.
Do you think there's any reason not to say "Too bad, if they wanted to vote, they would," exactly? Or put another way, do you think there is actually any compelling reason to think that a discrepancy in turnout really is attributable to widespread suppression? As opposed to myriad other cultural/social/economic/etc. causes?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think there's any reason not to say "Too bad, if they wanted to vote, they would," exactly? Or put another way, do you think there is actually any compelling reason to think that a discrepancy in turnout really is attributable to widespread suppression? As opposed to myriad other cultural/social/economic/etc. causes?
Calling it suppression implies a level of intent I'm not claiming here. The word suggests that rules about voting were put in place with the design of restricting poor and minority votes-something I'm not claiming. Most laws are written, for example, by people for whom acquiring the appropriate ID and getting to the polling place in single day's weekday window is no problem at all-at most a substantive inconvenience, but not something where they have to ask, "Alright, so do I vote this Tuesday or take an overdraft fee when the utilities are billed because I clocked two fewer hours that day?" Or, for example, replacing ID if lost or expired and you don't, say, have Internet access at home. Then perhaps you have to *call* the DMV and make an appointment which is quite likely to run over.
Another reason I don't think we should just say, "Eh, if they wanted to vote, they would," is that traditionally, when services are offered to the poor and minorities in such a way that they actually know about them-*not* just what the middle and upper class thinks they know-and can access them, they go ahead and do so.
Still another reason I don't think that is because our current system isn't set up to prevent fraud with its primary motive, it's set up as a compromise: none of the forms of ID required are especially hard to fake, and if we were really serious about cleaning up the voting process we would take a good, hard look at much of its infrastructure rather than its security.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think I misunderstood you, then. I thought you were going further in that passage than just saying that voter ID laws are bad. I thought you were saying that we need to make special additional efforts to help/encourage specific groups to vote. My bad.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this day and age where -anyone- (even the poor and minorities) can get access to the net by visiting their local library for free, we should simply have voting be an online function. There are plenty of security protocols that are well established, such as military, law enforcement, banking, shopping, etc to demonstrate that it can be done in a safe way.
And we should ditch the electoral college. I am durn tired of my (theoretical) presidential vote not counting if I don't want to vote Dem (I live in Cali).
(Yes rivka, I said Cali, live with it!)
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you might say that I am: what I am saying is that we need to make sure it is as available, as easy, for the bottom of the ladder as we do the middle and top. We're not doing that right now, and most of it is due to an understandable lack of imagination. You gave a head nod to other reasons, but when it comes down to it the typical reaction really IS, "If they wanted to, they would," without ever considering that when something stops or inhibits us from doing what *we* want to do, we typically don't just shrug and bull through-we try and change things.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
There are all kinds of issues with online voting. Why don't you consider why it's very different than anything that involves an institution that has a fiduciary or similar obligation to you.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the big difference...whether it's votes or money, the tech is there to do it securely. I mean, if you can file your taxes online, why couldn't you cast your vote?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hint: the first one is F...can you guess the second?
I remember from college the reason for the Electoral College, and it is invalid these days...unless they taught me wrong, which is possible.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Libraries often close early, or are closed entirely for at least a day on the weekend, and even when open Internet access isn't simply an easy given in all of them. Of the three county libraries I frequent, not for Net access but for books, more often than not every computer is taken, and many times there are people waiting in line for the short access ones.
It's not a given that everyone who wants it will be able to access the Internet.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure if not enough public access was available that there would be fine people who would allow their computers to be used as a ballot box just like right now they allow their homes to be used as a polling place.
Such problems as libraries not being open 24/7 can easily be overcome...they can extend their hours during voting time.
Sure it isn't a -given-, but it's hardly an insurmountable problem either.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then you're just trading the current system for something equally or more confusing. Not good for elderly voters either, or the computer illiterate. I think online voting is ok as a concept, but it should be like absentee balloting. O,d fashioned polling places still serve a purpose.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I should produce my own list of anecdotes... Because I pointed out that a weak-sauce list of anecdotes doesn't prove anything?
It's no longer an anecdotal list (I didn't add to those Geraine had compiled. I just provided links):
Anything that proves his point is just fine, but anything to the contrary it is just anecdotal. It has always been that way. You will eventually get used to it.
I don't think everyone is going out saying "I wonder how I can suppress voters so my side wins!"
I am sure it happens, but I don't think it is an epidemic like some people claim.
Where we are in this country right now is this. The right or the left has an idea that has good intentions. The other side doesn't agree with it, and they see political profit in disagreeing with it. So they come out publicly and tell everyone what the other sides intentions are, even if it is totally the opposite. Instead of looking at the merits of the idea and working together, they just write it off.
I think most of you complaining about "voter suppression" do not believe that falsifying voter registration is right. I don't think you believe that having people vote in the place of dead people or voter fraud is right. But instead of trying to come up with solutions and work together, all everyone does is complain about the other side and about how wrong they are.
I don't agree with removing people off of the voter rolls unless they are literally unable to vote. If someone is dead or has lost the right to vote, they should be removed. Otherwise, they should be left alone.
To vote in this country, we require that one registers to do so. Should we consider this a form of voter suppression? If not, then what the hell is the problem with requiring some sort of proof when you actually go to vote?
Interestingly enough, if you register to vote in person you don't need to show ID, but if you do by mail then you have to show proof of identification. A picture ID as well as utility bills are needed.
I really don't see a problem in requiring some sort of documentation in order to vote. When you register you get a voter registration card. That should be fine! A picture ID, EBT paperwork, or a utility bill would be fine too.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Cap, pay Orincoro no mind.
Anything that proves his point is just fine, but anything to the contrary it is just anecdotal. It has always been that way. You will eventually get used to it.
I noticed that a while ago yet still I try. Once I saw that he didn't mean anecdotal in the (common) sense of "substantiated" I realized I was being sucked into a word game and that real conversation had been shut down. For him, no amount of substantiated and credible claims will suffice. The quantity will always be too small.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Interestingly enough, if you register to vote in person you don't need to show ID, but if you do by mail then you have to show proof of identification. A picture ID as well as utility bills are needed.
This varies state by state.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anecdotal does not mean substantiated. Anecdotal means, surprisingly enough, means that it is made up of one or several anecdotes.
No one thinks that falsifying voter registration is a good thning. But actual data shows that it isn't a significant problem.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Cap, pay Orincoro no mind.
Anything that proves his point is just fine, but anything to the contrary it is just anecdotal. It has always been that way. You will eventually get used to it.
I noticed that a while ago yet still I try. Once I saw that he didn't mean anecdotal in the (common) sense of "substantiated" I realized I was being sucked into a word game and that real conversation had been shut down. For him, no amount of substantiated and credible claims will suffice. The quantity will always be too small.
Seriously? Anecdotal, in this context, refers to a small sample of sources, presented to lend weight to a claim. In this particular case, the question: who does what more, and to what degree more (or less), is a large scale question. Answering it requires that you examine the systematic processes and trends within the parties that indicate which, if either, tends towards a certain behavior. a list of cases, even a long list, does not answer this question.
I find it interesting that you feel "anecdotal" means something like "substantiated". In this context, again, statistics are substantive. Particular stories, many of which you could collect and represent as "proof," of some level of equivalency are not very useful in divining the answer to the question. We assume, when talking about a nationwide trend, encompassing many years and many different people and groups of people, that we can and will find individual accounts of all manner of behaviors, from many sources. This does not help us much in divining the relevance of these stories to the trend. Are they exceptional? Are they typical? We do not know.
In Samps earlier post, from last year, he gave a list of stories that do not strongly substantiate the thesis he has about Reublicans. You countered with a longer list of similar stories. The effect was the same- this was not effective substantiation of *your* thesis, that the two groups are equally guilty of these behaviors. It is also a poor challenge to the claim that Republican political culture is geared towards disenfranchisement of undesirable voters- evidence of Democratic malfeasance does not address that claim in the slightest. It has no bearing on an argument about Areubkicsn political culture, except to establish an equivalency in degree of culpability for perceived rings (which it fails to do).
As for geraine, you are crossing a line in telling others to pay me no mind. You can disagree with what I have to say, but I have every right to be heard, and others can decide for themselves whether they care to interact. You have no business saying otherwise.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Seriously? Anecdotal, in this context, refers to a small sample of sources... I find it interesting that you feel "anecdotal" means something like "substantiated".
As I alluded to above, the context in which you used the word wasn't clear. You can see in my response that I understand anecdotal to mean (correctly, according to one definition of the word) "un-substantiated." Yes, anecdotal, in the sense you intended it, can refer to a small sample of sources, which is a different argument than the one it appeared you were making.
quote:...the question: who does what more, and to what degree more (or less), is a large scale question. Answering it requires that you examine the systematic processes and trends within the parties that indicate which, if either, tends towards a certain behavior. a list of cases, even a long list, does not answer this question.
Answering the question requires a reversal in the procedure you stated. One must build a set of data out of a substantial collection of a certain behavior and then identify systemic tendencies and trends which correlate with that behavior. A list of cases, especially a long list, would greatly increase one's chance of accurately identifying trends and patterns within a nationwide group of individuals.
The list wasn't presented as some bomb-proof, definitive answer to the the question. The point of presenting a list with a small selection of examples was to show that there have been cases of Democrats engaging in voter fraud in recent years. No one claimed the list was comprehensive or statistically significant. In fact, no one, on either side of this discussion, has presented any scientific research or information on the subject.
quote:In Samps earlier post, from last year, he gave a list of stories that do not strongly substantiate the thesis he has about Reublicans. You countered with a longer list of similar stories.
This issue is becoming tedious. I didn't counter with a list. If you reread my response to his list you will see my only contention was that the cases he claimed to be examples of voter suppression, weren't.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: This issue is becoming tedious. I didn't counter with a list. If you reread my response to his list you will see my only contention was that the cases he claimed to be examples of voter suppression, weren't.
You're changing your story. You contended additionally that the first story seems like it is intended to rile liberals and make news. And you even admitted that the fourth article seems to have the spread of voter misinformation in it. I guess over time your view has evolved from "I'm sure there are BETTER examples" to "why, those aren't examples at all!"
I guess we could check back in four additional years — if all of the links have died by then, you can change your position again to say "Samprimary only gave us four dead links!"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Last presidential election there was some pretty high profile (to people on the right, anyway) voter fraud allegations going on in PA, mostly involving ACORN if I remember right. At a guess, he's referencing that.
If he's referencing that then he doesn't understand what happened with ACORN or is hoping that his constituents don't.
*All* of the ACORN-related allegations were regarding registration fraud (NOT vote fraud) - the submission of false or duplicate names for registration. This was generally done by overzealous canvassers trying to boost their numbers and it was often ACORN that reported the offenders.
Registration fraud does not lead to vote fraud. It leads to unscrupulous canvassers stealing money from organizations like ACORN.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: This issue is becoming tedious. I didn't counter with a list. If you reread my response to his list you will see my only contention was that the cases he claimed to be examples of voter suppression, weren't.
You're changing your story. You contended additionally that the first story seems like it is intended to rile liberals and make news. And you even admitted that the fourth article seems to have the spread of voter misinformation in it. I guess over time your view has evolved from "I'm sure there are BETTER examples" to "why, those aren't examples at all!"
I guess we could check back in four additional years — if all of the links have died by then, you can change your position again to say "Samprimary only gave us four dead links!"
My bad. Let me rephrase it. My only contention was that most of the cases you claimed to be examples of voter suppression, weren't. So I called the list weak. But good job, man. Way to be fastidious and catch my "changing story"... And I'm sure the one broken link was an incredible case of serious, serious voter suppression on the part of Republicans. God help us if your other amazing examples disappear..
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:House Republican leader Mike Turzai acknowledged the law's political implications at a Republican State Committee meeting last month.
"Voter ID - which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done," Turzai told the crowd, which burst into applause, as he listed legislative accomplishments under GOP control.
See at least they're straightforward and honest about it. I am sure this will curb all the no issues of voter fraud that Pennsylvania has, so as to keep it from being any more transparent. Oh!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In her 2010 book, The Myth of Voter Fraud, Lorraine Minnite tracked down every single case brought by the Justice Department between 1996 and 2005 and found that the number of defendants had increased by roughly 1,000 percent under Ashcroft. But that only represents an increase from about six defendants per year to 60, and only a fraction of those were ever convicted of anything. A New York Times investigation in 2007 concluded that only 86 people had been convicted of voter fraud during the previous five years. Many of those appear to have simply made mistakes on registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, and more than 30 of the rest were penny-ante vote-buying schemes in local races for judge or sheriff. The investigation found virtually no evidence of any organized efforts to skew elections at the federal level.
quote: In the deposition, released to the press yesterday, Greer mentioned a December 2009 meeting with party officials. “I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting,” he said, according to the Tampa Bay Times. He also said party officials discussed how “minority outreach programs were not fit for the Republican Party,” according to the AP.
posted
There are some mumblings that this may backfire, as a large portion of those with expired IDs are likely to be elderly - pretty reliable voters that tend to lean Republican.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Tuesday that the state would not comply with a court ruling and restore early voting in the final weekend before the election until an appellate court rules on the matter.
posted
I'd be happy to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt and assume they're seeking nothing more than fair and legal voting. Except...
- They only seem to care about it in swing states, where most of those laws were passed (and are being fought, and often overturned or blocked, in the courts).
- They don't seem to be working nearly as hard, or really at all, to increase voter education measures or to make sure every legal voter has the ID demanded.
- Limiting early voting hours and shutting down early voting locations has no justifiable reason other than limiting access to voters. In my state (Florida) in the last presidential election, 54 percent of black voters voted early, twice the number of white voters who did so. The last governor increased the early voting times to handle the crowds; this one severely cut them back.
- The harsh anti-registration law which required a mountain of paperwork and a strict 48-hour turnaround for voter registration (and heavy fines for missing the deadline) seemed almost comically aimed at discouraging groups like the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote. This was also blocked in Florida.
- Oddly enough, voter purge laws seem to happen most often when a presidential election rolls around and a Republican governor is in charge. Florida's recent voter purge attempt was opposed by the Justice Dept. and many of the local elections officials, about half of whom are Republican.
- I'd also be more open to the idea if politicians like Mike Turzai didn't open state that these laws would help Romney win. I notice none of the defenders here have addressed that quote yet.
Registration fraud involves thousands of cases. Voter fraud much less than that.
Voter suppression may keep millions of legal voters from exercising their constitutional right. Laws passed in Pennsylvania may prevent up to 750,000 legal voters -- almost 10% of the population -- from voting. Number of incidents of voter fraud? 0, according to the state of Pennsylvania.
And in-person voter fraud is a stupid way to rig an election. Much easier is sending in fraudulent absentee ballots, but I don't see any laws targeting those. And I won't, since that might impact military voters who might be inclined to vote GOP.
No. If these laws were intended to improve the electoral process, rather than just making sure one side won, they would be focused on increasing the legal vote. Not a single one of these laws does that.
[ September 08, 2012, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An (intentionally anecdotal) personal comment about Voter Registration:
I ended up finally registering to vote again, after moving, mostly because I had an app that allowed me to fill out the information, which then sent me the registration form that I could print out.
Even still, it took me well over a week and a half to print it out, sign it, do the folding, and get it to the post office, along with my wifes. Part of the issue was that after you print it out, you have to tape the bottom so it can be mailed in its own "envelope" that it turns into.
Now while there is obviously nothing difficult about what I mentioned, the truth is, it took so long simply because we didn't have scotch tape in our house. Scotch Tape.
If I didn't care so much to go out and vote, I would have probably just put it off like I do other things if they're not deemed "That important." (Even still, I live in a state that isn't a swing state, will vote heavily for Romney, and my vote won't even show up as a blip on the 1000 people in Oklahoma that vote for Obama.)
So the point of this story: Anything that adds an impediment to make it more difficult to vote will "Suppress" the vote. You can argue all day on whether or not it's intentional, but the fact remains - it will suppress it. My story is not unique to how people tend to act.
If I had to go get a new ID, pay $10, sit around for an hour or more at the DMV.. Even though I want to vote, I would probably deem that it was too much of a waste to go down and waste an entire afternoon + money so I can vote in an election. And I have a car, and the extra money to pay, and time to "Waste." There are many many people that don't.
There are a lot of people that vote that don't drive, don't use Credit Cards (Or only use them at small shops that don't ID) etc. and don't carry around a Valid State ID. A percentage won't be able to afford it, a percentage won't be able to get to the DMV, a percentage can't take off work.
The "early voting" restrictions are just asinine as early voting is only set up to make it easier to vote, but it appears when people noticed only minorities really utilize it, they wanted to get rid of it. That's just sad. Many working class people can't take off work to run down to the voting center on a specific day, early voting allows them a way around that.
You can say this is all baloney if you want, but I do remember in my days in the Military, I didn't vote "Absentee" mostly because it was a hassle. But also, because I was younger - not very political, and didn't have any candidates I actually liked anyways. But I knew lots of military that didn't vote for the same reason. I also have a friend living in Japan that won't vote in this election, just because to him it's too much trouble to get his Absentee ballot and send it in.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote: Conservative anti–voter fraud fervor first arose around the same time as two turning points in American politics. The first was John F. Kennedy’s narrow presidential win in 1960, which many Republicans attributed to voter fraud in Illinois and Texas. The second was the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which, by banning discriminatory voting practices, stoked fear in some quarters about the rising power of black voters. During the run-up to the 1964 presidential election, the Republican National Committee launched Operation Eagle Eye, the nation’s first large-scale anti–voter fraud campaign. As part of the program, the RNC recruited tens of thousands of volunteers to show up at polling places, mostly in inner cites, and challenge voters’ eligibility using a host of tools and tactics, including cameras, two-way radios, and calls to Republican-friendly sheriffs.
After this, anti-fraud campaigns became commonplace, but they could backfire, as the RNC learned in 1981. That year, the party hired a swashbuckling 29-year-old named John Kelly to organize “ballot security” for New Jersey’s gubernatorial election. Kelly, who turned up in the state wearing cowboy boots and a 10-gallon hat, arranged to have hundreds of thousands of sample ballots mailed to voters in black and Latino neighborhoods. His team then compiled a list of people whose ballots were returned as undeliverable, and allegedly tried to have them struck from the rolls. This technique, known as caging, is controversial because it can purge eligible voters. In this case, an outdated address roster was used—meaning that an unusually large share of the people on Kelly’s list may have been wrongly targeted.
Kelly and his associates also recruited squadrons of men—many of them off-duty police officers—to descend on black and Latino precincts around New Jersey on Election Day. Wearing National Ballot Security Task Force armbands, walkie-talkies, and in some cases guns, the men posted signs warning in large red letters that the areas were being patrolled. They then stationed themselves around polling places and allegedly tried to stop those whose names appeared on the caging list from voting.
According to a Republican Party lawyer who was on the scene that day, before the polls closed, Kelly hightailed it out of the state in a Chevy Impala, armbands and signs stuffed in the trunk. When the Essex County prosecutor’s office launched a statewide criminal investigation the following week, he was nowhere to be found.
In the end, prosecutors didn’t bring charges—no would-be voters stepped forward to say they had been blocked from casting ballots—but the Democratic National Committee filed a federal lawsuit accusing Kelly and the RNC of violating the Voting Rights Act. To settle the case, in 1982 the RNC signed a consent decree, agreeing to end all “ballot security” programs targeting minority precincts. Four years later, the RNC was caught caging minority voters in Louisiana, an effort that was intended to “keep the black vote down,” according to an internal RNC memo. The DNC filed suit again, and a chastened RNC agreed to a modified decree requiring it to submit all plans for anti–voter fraud campaigns to the court for approval.
At which point, the RNC mostly abandoned its anti–voter fraud programs. While state parties and individual candidates continued to launch scattered ballot-security efforts, national attention to voter fraud faded. That is, until the 2000 presidential election. Tova Wang, who was on the staff of the 2001 National Commission on Federal Election Reform and is now a fellow at the public-policy think tank Demos, says that after Bush v. Gore, political strategists took a new interest in the mechanics of elections. “Partisan activists began trying to alter the rules and tinker with election administration to gain partisan advantage,” she told me recently.
Some liberals began pushing for measures (such as Election Day registration) that would lower barriers to voting. Conservatives, on the other hand, took a renewed interest in fighting voter fraud. A raft of new state legislation followed, including voter-ID laws (now on the books in 33 states) and laws requiring people to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote. It’s not clear what problem these measures solve, however. Several exhaustive studies have found that voter fraud is exceedingly rare.
Meanwhile, the RNC has tried to get back into the ballot-security game. In 2008, the party asked Dickinson Debevoise, the New Jersey federal judge who presided over the two 1980s cases, to abolish or modify the decades-old consent decree barring certain anti–voter fraud activities. The RNC argued that the ban had outlived its purpose, but Debevoise was not persuaded, and denied the RNC’s request. (The party appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed Debevoise’s ruling.) “Minority voters continue to overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates,” Debevoise wrote in his 2009 decision. “As long as that is the case, the RNC and other Republican groups may be tempted to keep qualified minority voters from casting their ballots, especially in light of the razor-thin margin of victory by which many elections have been decided in recent years.”
Or at least having folks committing registration fraud--in many ways similar to what ACORN was doing, except that ACORN officials admitted their mistakes and reported themselves, while this Republican group said "Its just one guy and we fired him." which doesn't explain the multi-county wide fraudulent forms.
Of course what might explain it was that the Republicans hired the same guy who, in 2008, led their registration drive organization that was caught illegally disposing of Democratic registration forms.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get too fussed about extra registration forms as the incentive for that is generally that people get paid by how many people they register. It is not generally about skewing elections. The only "victim" of the ACORN problem was ACORN.
Disposing of registration forms is serious voter fraud with the intent of denying someone their vote. Much like the voter "purges" that continue to go on.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
And I'm sure the one broken link was an incredible case of serious, serious voter suppression on the part of Republicans. God help us if your other amazing examples disappear..
